New U.S. Antitrust Bill Would Require Apple and Google to Allow Third-Party App Stores and Sideloading

[mpak]

I think phones are a bit different since they're so personal to you. Tons of information about you including your location basically all the time. Whereas, I don't see PCs able to collect all this info on you.

Now granted, I'm in favor of taking down the walled garden but for less tech savvy people this can really affect them.

Click to shrink...

People send emails, chat and so on via apps. We use PC Whatsapp or Telegram apps, chat via them or send messages. Seamless transitioning from one device to another. Devices already track our locations (how often websites ask for your location for example?). In fact our browsers are not different from even mobile devices in functionality as we are checking our bank accounts and so on there too.

Nowadays though it feels like either WIndows Defender + AdGuard is the ultimate combo or something or there are less viruses because in the days of Windows XP you would be lucky to have Windows without virus there. Now, on the other hand - it is almost barren.

 

[bruhaha]

A multibillion dollar market is not going to cease to exist. If Sony/MS/Nintendo can't figure out how to sell a simple/easy box to connect to the TV then someone else will.

Click to shrink...

What? They do know how to make that device, just not cheaply. That someone else will have to charge more to do it because they're not better than these companies at making hardware cheap and they won't be making royalties to the degree existing consoles are. If that price is too high for consumers, then yes it will cease to exist.

Again, it won't happen anyway because the respective 1st party stores are already entrenched as the default store for their platforms. It's no different than Valve's position on PC. Despite PC devs having dozen of ways around paying Valve a cut of their money -- they do it anyway because that is where the audience is. The same will happen on consoles if third party stores were to appear. So it will still be incredibly lucrative for Sony/MMS/Nintendo is continue being platform holders.

Click to shrink...

How much does Valve make from Fortnite and how much do MS/Sony make from it? Valve doesn't subsidize the hardware that Fortnite runs on PC.

 

[Ascenion]

They can just disable side-loading by default and require to opt in so you weirdos can enjoy your locked-down overpriced hardware.

Seriously what a weird thing to want.

Click to shrink...

It's really not. The competition this bill seeks to create already exists on an ecosystem level. You want open go android. You want closed go Apple. But there are obvious ways around this. Like Apple could create like an OpenOS that gives you freedom with none of their support. I'm talking zero. No Apple care no anything. You make the choice between iOS and the open one upon device activation.

 

[Prine]

Terrible idea, would hate it. I like the central aspect of these stores, one place to get everything without having to worry about idiosyncrasies or pros/cons of other stores.

Think a better solution is to allow these stores to be more transparent about there management and fees, create some form of governance and compliance handled by government that both need to adhere to .

Do not want this nightmare scenario of as many stores as apps. Yuk.

 

[mikehaggar]

I wrote up several paragraphs, but I'll just say I'm against this. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think people and/or companies should have the right to do whatever they want with platforms (combination of hardware/software) they've created. The government stepping in at some arbitrary point and saying "Your product is so popular that you have to let everyone do whatever they want with it" is nonsense in my opinion.

 

[Eoin]

I'm actually not sure what this even changes for Google. If they're not forced to have these in the Play Store then...they're already doing this

Click to shrink...

The bill prevents an app store owner (with >50M users) from requiring developers to use a particular payment system. If passed, Google's current requirement for all payments to go through a Google-approved system would no longer be legal. That probably wouldn't pan out to forcing complete freedom of payment, but it'd definitely mean big changes to how Play Store transactions worked.

 

[Deleted member 85465]

Some of the lower courts are pretty much a crap shoot, shit like the apple case def has enough resources to sustain for years, hell apple was fighting Qualcomm forever till they finally had a truce lol.

Click to shrink...

It all depends, I have worked with some amazing lower courts that had all their work undone because a higher court didn´t bother to read critical evidence and viceversa lmao.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

people here just fucking love monopolies, huh?

Click to shrink...

I'd rather have a monopoly in App Stores than a Cartel. Because that's where we'll end up eventually.

 

[platocplx]

It all depends, I have worked with some amazing lower courts that had all their work undone because a higher court didn´t bother to read critical evidence and viceversa lmao.

Click to shrink...

i guess the better way is the whole court system is pretty much a game of wack a mole if you have enough money to keep moving around pretty much pay to win the case or reach a stalemate lol.

 

[bes.gen]

Call me a sheep but I'm rather comfy and secure inside my walled off garden Apple provides and would prefer it stayed that way.

Click to shrink...

its not about taking that away.
you are not going to be forced to side-load stuff.
and it'll be surely disabled by default just like on android

 

[Prine]

people here just fucking love monopolies, huh?

Click to shrink...

Love not inviting overhead of the wild wild west style environment, yes.

 

[Ascenion]

I wrote up several paragraphs, but I'll just say I'm against this. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think people and/or companies should have the right to do whatever they want with platforms (combination of hardware/software) they've created. The government stepping in at some arbitrary point and saying "Your product is so popular that you have to let everyone do whatever they want with it" is nonsense in my opinion.

Click to shrink...

I agree wholeheartedly. The government is overstepping its bounds here.

 

[Joni]

I wrote up several paragraphs, but I'll just say I'm against this. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think people and/or companies should have the right to do whatever they want with platforms (combination of hardware/software) they've created. The government stepping in at some arbitrary point and saying "Your product is so popular that you have to let everyone do whatever they want with it" is nonsense in my opinion.

Click to shrink...

I agree wholeheartedly. The government is overstepping its bounds here.

Click to shrink...

So you believe Microsoft also shouldn't have been forced give other browsers more prominence? Because they were comparable to Google in the PC-world. Google and Apple have already demonstrated widely they are abusing their position.

 

[Deleted member 85465]

i guess the better way is the whole court system is pretty much a game of wack a mole if you have enough money to keep moving around pretty much pay to win the case or reach a stalemate lol.

Click to shrink...

I am just saying that Sae´s casino palace in Persona 5 help me get through some really tough work 8 ) (I almost cried when seeing that Sae saw the whole justice system like a casino.)

 

[Pryme]

people here just fucking love monopolies, huh?

Click to shrink...

Folks don't want to pay $799 for consoles, yes.

 

[platocplx]

I am just saying that Sae´s casino palace in Persona 5 help me get through some really tough work 8 ) (I almost cried when seeing that Sae saw the whole justice system like a casino.)

Click to shrink...

damn that's true.

 

[Deleted member 85465]

Folks don't want to pay $799 for consoles, yes.

Click to shrink...

That was the Gamecube and PS2 price? damn.

 

[Uzzy]

I wrote up several paragraphs, but I'll just say I'm against this. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think people and/or companies should have the right to do whatever they want with platforms (combination of hardware/software) they've created. The government stepping in at some arbitrary point and saying "Your product is so popular that you have to let everyone do whatever they want with it" is nonsense in my opinion.

Click to shrink...

I don't necessarily disagree, but is there any point you'd think that is acceptable? If everyone in a country was using a product that was essential to the modern economy/life, would legislation forcing it to be opened up be acceptable?

Personally I don't like any arbitrary thresholds like this, but to me smartphones and app stores are so ubiquitous and essential to modern society that I'm certainly sympathetic to the proposal. Even if I couldn't give an arbitrary threshold for when such measures should kick in. It's very 'I know it when I see it.'

 

[YohraUtopia]

It's also worth noting that this bill is coming from the Federal Government, which *absolutely* means it has malicious intent behind it (i.e. finding a way to backdoor data off of iPhones for surveillance purposes, etc). I trust the Government far less than I trust Apple to do the "right thing" in regards to security and privacy. A sweeping bill like this, written by people who absolutely don't understand the technology they want to regulate...nah. I'm good.

Click to shrink...

Apple already gives (or sells, I'd have to check) like 90% of the data the state wants to it. They do not give a shit about your privacy. Most of these companies are currently competing to be the principle data conduit to the government already. This whole argument is borderline conspiracy nonsense. It's extremely rare for the US gov to move against big multinationals in any sector. As I explained in my long previous comment, there are some malicious intents bundled in here for sure regarding national interest, political maneuvering, etc. but nothing like what you're talking about. The intent of the bill is ordinary and plain as day; it's an anti-trust bill. You may not like anti-trust legislation and think that in itself is malicious but then make that argument.

 

[YohraUtopia]

I wrote up several paragraphs, but I'll just say I'm against this. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think people and/or companies should have the right to do whatever they want with platforms (combination of hardware/software) they've created. The government stepping in at some arbitrary point and saying "Your product is so popular that you have to let everyone do whatever they want with it" is nonsense in my opinion.

Click to shrink...

Curious if people feel the same way about say, the fossil fuels and petro-chemicals sector?

 

[bes.gen]

I agree wholeheartedly. The government is overstepping its bounds here.

Click to shrink...

yes because these companies repeatedly demonstrated they are beacon of self regulation and are not run by psychopaths, trying to snuff out any competition

 

[Indy_Rex]

Most PCs that track location that actually matters (your live location) need Wi-Fi or LTE. Most don't have LTE. Also they track based on IP which is highly inaccurate compared to GPS/cell towers. Your phone tracks all of this with a camera, microphone, tracks your footsteps, and a ton of other data that isn't as easy to get on your PC. Phones are A LOT more personal than PCs, IDK why anyone would ever argue otherwise.

Click to shrink...

None of this changes the point I made. PCs ~already did this~ before smartphones existed, PCs can do it even more now because of smartphones. On average accurate location tracking doesn't require GPS signal (and isn't just "TCP/IP tracking), and generally speaking laptops are far more common than desktops. Meaning your average PC user has a mobile platform that has either identical or similar functionality to a mobile phone, the only difference being size and use.

Correlating how "personal" a device is to what information it could provide is a terribly imprecise argument to make since one of these things is tangible (information/data gathering) and the other one isn't (how "personal" something is can't be quantified). Outside of location tracking (which itself doesn't define how "personal" a device is), smartphones and computers are interchangeable devices.

Cameras and microphones? Standard functionality in laptops. Information gathering? Define that, because, like how something can be "more personal" than something else, so can a broad term like "information gathering" it's just an intangible phrase.

You can, and normally do provide the same information on your computer that you can on your smartphone. And saying "they are A LOT more personal" isn't a tangible metric to measure, it's just a belief.

 

[Ascenion]

So you believe Microsoft also shouldn't have been forced give other browsers more prominence? Because they were comparable to Google in the PC-world. Google and Apple have already demonstrated widely they are abusing their position.

Click to shrink...

I mean yeah I had no issue with the Internet Explorer things. Mind you Windows wasn't a walled garden and neither is MacOS but I have no problem with a platform holder using their platform for their benefit. I don't see why anyone would or should. It's not like you couldn't download other browsers. It's not like they created this software to be told how it has to run.

 

[BobLoblaw]

Opening Pandora's box is a cataclysmic event that leads to lots of harm. It's not just « opening a walled garden »

Click to shrink...

...That's not what people mean when they use that metaphor.

Pan·do·ra's box - a process that generates many complicated problems as the result of unwise interference in something.

 

[Joni]

I mean yeah I had no issue with the Internet Explorer things. Mind you Windows wasn't a walled garden and neither is MacOS but I have no problem with a platform holder using their platform for their benefit. I don't see why anyone would or should. It's not like you couldn't download other browsers. It's not like they created this software to be told how it has to run.

Click to shrink...

Because they are abusing their position to worsen the experience for you, for instance making Spotify more expensive for you while not putting a similar restriction on their own services. It makes your life as a consumer worse. That is where the antitrust legislation comes in, it is about protecting you.

 

[Gay Bowser]

I wrote up several paragraphs, but I'll just say I'm against this. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think people and/or companies should have the right to do whatever they want with platforms (combination of hardware/software) they've created. The government stepping in at some arbitrary point and saying "Your product is so popular that you have to let everyone do whatever they want with it" is nonsense in my opinion.

Click to shrink...

The 50M threshold does seem hella arbitrary. Why is it okay for the maker of a platform with 49M users to control that platform, but as soon as they hit 50M, everything changes? It seems like the threshold is there just so the law is specifically targeted at certain companies, which…doesn't really seem like good lawmaking to me. (They might as well say "If you're named Apple or Alphabet, you must…")

I get that a lot of people here don't like this but it's sort of a central tenet of American politics that we don't punish companies just for being successful. Even companies with actual monopoly-level market share (which the iPhone does not have) have to be found to be abusing their monopoly in order to be punished.

I'll just say as a consumer there are about a zillion things I wish congress and the DOJ would look at before side-loading apps. Like, not trying to do whataboutismhere, but can someone maybe look at how Penguin Random House is trying to buy Simon & Schuster? That's not as sexy as going after "Big Tech" but it's literally a company buying up majority market share in a sector. It'd be like if Disney bought 20th Century, and then a few years later also bought Sony Pictures. And it's probably going to skate right by.

I continue to note how Congress's focus seems to be on everybody but Amazon. As a consumer they're the tech giant that scares me the most. They've basically made it impossible for other online retailers to compete through decades of what was previously known as predatory pricing, they run half the internet through AWS, they have basically monopoly-level market share on ebooks, they're freaking buying MGM just because they can… And Congress doesn't ever seem to look very closely at what they do.

 

[Menx64]

Good! If I buy a device, I should be able to use it as I want.

It's also worth noting that this bill is coming from the Federal Government, which *absolutely* means it has malicious intent behind it (i.e. finding a way to backdoor data off of iPhones for surveillance purposes, etc). I trust the Government far less than I trust Apple to do the "right thing" in regards to security and privacy. A sweeping bill like this, written by people who absolutely don't understand the technology they want to regulate...nah. I'm good.

Click to shrink...

Apple who is didnt care to have a wife tracking app?

Wife-tracking apps are one sign of Saudi Arabia’s vile regime. Others include crucifixion | Catherine Bennett

Treating women as chattels and executing 37 of its citizens are of a piece for a sick state

www.theguardian.com

 

[Ascenion]

Because they are abusing their position to worsen the experience for you, for instance making Spotify more expensive for you while not putting a similar restriction on their own services. It makes your life as a consumer worse. That is where the antitrust legislation comes in, it is about protecting you.

Click to shrink...

I don't use Spotify, so correct me if I'm wrong but, can you not just sign up for Spotify through a browser and sign in on iOS to avoid paying more? I mean sure it's an extra hoop to jump through but it is available.

 

[jwhit28]

I mean yeah I had no issue with the Internet Explorer things. Mind you Windows wasn't a walled garden and neither is MacOS but I have no problem with a platform holder using their platform for their benefit. I don't see why anyone would or should. It's not like you couldn't download other browsers. It's not like they created this software to be told how it has to run.

Click to shrink...

These platforms probably wouldn't exist without anti-trust suits against ATT and Microsoft.

 

[collige]

I wrote up several paragraphs, but I'll just say I'm against this. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think people and/or companies should have the right to do whatever they want with platforms (combination of hardware/software) they've created. The government stepping in at some arbitrary point and saying "Your product is so popular that you have to let everyone do whatever they want with it" is nonsense in my opinion.

Click to shrink...

I'm fine with this in theory, but that goes out the window once said platforms start creating their own software ecosystems that other people's livelihoods depend on. Do you also think the Microsoft antitrust suit shouldn't have happened because they created Windows?

Curious if people feel the same way about say, the fossil fuels and petro-chemicals sector?

Click to shrink...

Speaking for myself, I would want any regulation on fossil fuels to apply to every sized business.

I mean yeah I had no issue with the Internet Explorer things. Mind you Windows wasn't a walled garden and neither is MacOS but I have no problem with a platform holder using their platform for their benefit. I don't see why anyone would or should. It's not like you couldn't download other browsers. It's not like they created this software to be told how it has to run.

Click to shrink...

Leveraging your position as the platform holder to benefit your own apps puts any other 3rd party app in the same space at a huge competitive disadvantage. For example, I hate Spotify but they have a very valid complaint that they're being pushed to take give Apple a 30% cut on all their income while Apple Music's cut goes right back to the parent company.

I'd apply this logic to all first party games too tbh but that's probably a conversation for another thread.

 

[Yappa]

I'm all for it.
Don't need someone to decide for me what games I'm able to buy.

 

[YohraUtopia]

I continue to note how Congress's focus seems to be on everybody but Amazon

Click to shrink...

Amazon is one of the principle targets here. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/22/technology/amazon-apple-google-facebook-antitrust-bills.html

But your second point is 100% correct. It is literally impossible to not be an Amazon customer because of the ubiquity of AWS.

 

[Joni]

I don't use Spotify, so correct me if I'm wrong but, can you not just sign up for Spotify through a browser and sign in on iOS to avoid paying more? I mean sure it's an extra hoop to jump through but it is available.

Click to shrink...

And Spotify is absolutely not allowed to give you any indication that it would be cheaper to do so, which is why the EU is also targetting Apple for this practice.

 

[Ckoerner]

But the thing is that we have the same issue on Windows PCs and there are ways to handle that. It is not that different to be honest.

Click to shrink...

I don't disagree with the first part, but after 15 years working in technology I feel we are far from handling it well. :p

 

[thisismadness]

I do not buy that the console market would remain roughly the same way that it is now. I am sure consoles of some kind would still exist, but they would have to earn a profit off the hardware itself.

Click to shrink...

Its not like they're taking a huge bath in losses on these consoles. The PS5 is already at production break-even in less than a year and the Switch was never sold at a loss. So no, I don't think there is going to be some earth-shattering difference. If anything, we might see a third SKU.

It is possible that the consumer would continue using the default store, but it is also possible that a company like Valve with lots of experience developing a great store front could take over. No one uses MS's PC storefront even though that is the default. The console manufacturers could not assume that another company would effectively take over their console audience with a better store front.

Click to shrink...

if Valve is able to launch a far better store then they deserve to "take over". That is on Sony/MS/Nintendo to ensure it doesn't happen. That is the whole point of competing stores.

That would probably improve the incentive to produce better store fronts, but it would decrease the incentive to deliver powerful hardware at a loss or small profit the way MS and Sony do now.

Click to shrink...

No, because they'll still need to attract audiences to their respective platforms... and powerful and/or innovative hardware will continue to be a key component of that. The Steam Deck is a good example of that.

 

[Arulan]

It never ceases to amaze me how people can so strongly support something which makes every attempt to take advantage of them. There was even a time when consoles were so closed they didn't want third-party games on them. Closed-platforms are for the benefit of the platform-holder, not you.

 

[Ascenion]

And Spotify is absolutely not allowed to give you any indication that it would be cheaper to do so, which is why the EU is also targetting Apple for this practice.

Click to shrink...

Okay yeah that is fucked up. I get not allowing them to skip the 30% fee for in-app purchases, but not allowing them to tell customers hey you can just go to our site is fucked up. Drag Apple over the coals for that.

 

[YohraUtopia]

Speaking for myself, I would want any regulation on fossil fuels to apply to every sized business.

Click to shrink...

I mean, I guess me too. My point was that this idea of "their platform, their right" is not really defensible.

 

[mpak]

I don't disagree with the first part, but after 15 years working in technology I feel we are from from handling it well. :p

Click to shrink...

Anecdotally, it feels like these days there are less viruses and trojans on Windows.

I continue to note how Congress's focus seems to be on everybody but Amazon. As a consumer they're the tech giant that scares me the most. They've basically made it impossible for other online retailers to compete through decades of what was previously known as predatory pricing, they run half the internet through AWS, they have basically monopoly-level market share on ebooks, they're freaking buying MGM just because they can… And Congress doesn't ever seem to look very closely at what they do.

Click to shrink...

Oh, there is a reason for that. Lobbying aside (because you can be pretty sure that Apple, Google are doing that too), Amazon is just not the part of your regular life in comparison to mobile phones. You can avoid Amazon if you want to, but you cannot avoid Apple or Android.

Being big is not a sin. It is the same reason why for example Microsoft avoid the same level of scrutinize other big tech companies have - they just don't have that level of influence and involvement in the personal life as other big tech have.

 

[Skytylz]

Great news, hope it passes. The 50 million does seem arbitrary, they should make it broader to avoid any platform holders trying to get around it.

 

[YohraUtopia]

Oh, there is a reason for that. Lobbying aside (because you can be pretty sure that Apple, Google are doing that too), Amazon is just not the part of your regular life in comparison to mobile phones. You can avoid Amazon if you want to, but you cannot avoid Apple or Android.

Click to shrink...

Actually quite the opposite. It's pretty easy to avoid Apple. It's harder to avoid Google. It's impossible to avoid Amazon and, once again, Amazon is one of the principle targets of this bill. They are also putting up one of the biggest fights against it.

 

[cdudeachyut]

Wouldn't mind this really.

 

[Skytylz]

Actually quite the opposite. It's pretty easy to avoid Apple. It's harder to avoid Google. It's impossible to avoid Amazon and, once again, Amazon is one of the principle targets of this bill. They are also putting up one of the biggest fights against it.

Click to shrink...

Google and Microsoft are in similar situations as Amazon with their cloud services.

 

[Gay Bowser]

You can avoid Amazon if you want to, but you cannot avoid Apple or Android.
Being big is not a sin.

Click to shrink...

I think it's significantly easier to avoid Apple than Amazon, due to AWS if nothing else. If you want to boycott Apple you can pretty much just not buy Apple devices. They don't underpin a lot of the internet in the same way Amazon does, or own any major social networks or anything.

 

[Ambitious]

[

Okay yeah that is fucked up. I get not allowing them to skip the 30% fee for in-app purchases, but not allowing them to tell customers hey you can just go to our site is fucked up. Drag Apple over the coals for that.

Click to shrink...

I don't. I'm paying Spotify to access a service implemented and hosted by them. Why should Apple see any money for this?

 

[Powerofthecloud]

I like my walled garden. Fuck off. Like I specifically bought an iPhone because it's closed off. Goddamn if you want choice buy android. Leave Apple alone.

Click to shrink...

Then don't side load anything.

Are customers asking for this or companies like Epic that want to be able to put their own stores and not have to share profits with Apple and Google??

Click to shrink...

Both.

 

[Kill3r7]

It never ceases to amaze me how people can so strongly support something which makes every attempt to take advantage of them. There was even a time when consoles were so closed they didn't want third-party games on them. Closed-platforms are for the benefit of the platform-holder, not you.

Click to shrink...

We (especially true in a gaming forum) identify/align/stan with a product/brand over the community at large. Same is true with sports, music, movies etc. We want to belong and be part of the it crowd.

That said, an open platform is not necessarily the best outcome for every user. On the aggregate, I don't think we, the user/consumer, will see much of a benefit from it. In the context of smart phones/devices.

 

[YohraUtopia]

Google and Microsoft are in similar situations as Amazon with their cloud services.

Click to shrink...

Google is the biggest competitor with Amazon in that space. MS is in data mining (but Amazon is furious to have lost the gov surveillance contracts to MS. CORRECTION: Apparently today Amazon actually won back the NSA contract. EDIT: it's actually 1 and 1 https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/10/22618764/nsa-10-billion-microsoft-aws-cloud-services-protest) But Amazon really is unavoidable. Here's a pretty good story on that: https://gizmodo.com/i-tried-to-block-amazon-from-my-life-it-was-impossible-1830565336

I do agree though that MS should get more attention. I think them dodging break-up in the 90s is part of why they're not as front and center here.

 

[mikehaggar]

So you believe Microsoft also shouldn't have been forced give other browsers more prominence? Because they were comparable to Google in the PC-world. Google and Apple have already demonstrated widely they are abusing their position.

Click to shrink...

I believe Microsoft should not have been forced to give other browsers prominence. I believe they should be allowed to prevent any piece of software from running on their OS they want, for any reason.

I don't necessarily disagree, but is there any point you'd think that is acceptable? If everyone in a country was using a product that was essential to the modern economy/life, would legislation forcing it to be opened up be acceptable?

Personally I don't like any arbitrary thresholds like this, but to me smartphones and app stores are so ubiquitous and essential to modern society that I'm certainly sympathetic to the proposal. Even if I couldn't give an arbitrary threshold for when such measures should kick in. It's very 'I know it when I see it.'

Click to shrink...

The thing is a cell phone, or at least the computing part of it, is not essential to every day life. And really, this all comes down to money and percentages of sales from the app store. You could perhaps argue that some apps out there are essential. I'd be willing to bet that any app that would qualify as essential is free, so it doesn't matter which store you buy it from.

Curious if people feel the same way about say, the fossil fuels and petro-chemicals sector?

Click to shrink...

I'm speaking on computing platforms (combination of hardware/software). A bit different than fossil fuels.

I'm fine with this in theory, but that goes out the window once said platforms start creating their own software ecosystems that other people's livelihoods depend on. Do you also think the Microsoft antitrust suit shouldn't have happened because they created Windows?


Speaking for myself, I would want any regulation on fossil fuels to apply to every sized business.


Leveraging your position as the platform holder to benefit your own apps puts any other 3rd party app in the same space at a huge competitive disadvantage. For example, I hate Spotify but they have a very valid complaint that they're being pushed to take give Apple a 30% cut on all their income while Apple Music's cut goes right back to the parent company.

I'd apply this logic to all first party games too tbh but that's probably a conversation for another thread.

Click to shrink...

Sucks to be Spotify. If you don't want to pay the fee then don't put your service on iOS. I'd argue the market will correct such things. If everyone pulls their apps/services off of iOS because they don't want to pay the percentage, eventually it will affect iPhone sales. People will migrate to a different platform. If Apple starts blocking competitors from even releasing apps on iOS it will, at some point, affect sales and they will lose users.

And at the end of the day, being able to listen to Spotify on your mobile phone is not an essential part of life. There's no need for the government to step in and say, "Well, Apple, you're really not being fair to Spotify. We are now going to tell you what you can and can do with the platform you've created and invested billions of dollars into while creating and cultivating it."

 

[mpak]

Actually quite the opposite. It's pretty easy to avoid Apple. It's harder to avoid Google. It's impossible to avoid Amazon and, once again, Amazon is one of the principle targets of this bill. They are also putting up one of the biggest fights against it.

Click to shrink...

By "hard to avoid" I meant the usage pattern. Mobile phone is becoming something akin a passport basically. You can use it to pay, to travel, even as vaccination passport. It is too important these days.

It is easy to avoid Amazon, but it depends on the country probably. Not sure how it is in USA. But even then it is not that level of importance as mobile phone has.

due to AWS if nothing else

Click to shrink...

I am not sure if AWS has anything to do with what is being discussed. It is hard to avoid Internet these days. Beware of ISP~

Google is the biggest competitor with Amazon in that space.

Click to shrink...

What? Azure is literally second biggest cloud out there.